11 violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the prejudice of Belkis Mirelis, Fernando and María Angélica Gonzáles and Wilmer Antonio Barliza Gonzáles. 57. The Commission also considers that the allegations related to the relevance and application of the CEC which as a general rule established preventive detention due to the existence of the mere indicia of criminal responsibility, if proved, may characterize a failure to fulfill the duty established in Article 2 of the American Convention.10 58. The Commission considers that the allegations as to the failure to implement the protective measures for Olimpíades Gonzáles issued by the State and the delay in the investigation into his death may characterize violations of Article 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with its Article 1.1. The Commission also considers that the alleged facts may characterize a violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the prejudice of the alleged victims' immediate family.11 59. Since it is not evident that these aspects of the claim are manifestly groundless or out of order, the Commission considers that the requirements established in Articles 47.b and c of the American Convention are satisfied. Finally, the Commission considers that the petitioners' allegations do not fit into the premise of Article 10 of the American Convention, since the alleged victims were not convicted by a final sentence by judicial error. Therefore, the Commission considers that this section of the petition is manifestly groundless. V. CONCLUSIONS 60. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the claims presented by the petitioners on the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2, in accordance to what was established in the preceding paragraphs. 61. The Commission also concludes that the petition is inadmissible for a failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the compensation for the preventive detention of Olimpíades and Luís Guillermo Gonzáles. In addition, the Commission concludes that that section of the petition related to the alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 10 of the American Convention is inadmissible, since it is manifestly groundless. 62. Based on the arguments of fact and law set out above and without prejudice to an examination of the merits of the claim, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible in relation to the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the 10 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 115 y 116. 11 The alleged victims' immediate family members are included taking into account the provisions of Article 35.1 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' Rules and its jurisprudence. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment of November 23, 2009, and I/A Court H.R., Resolution of January 19, 2009, in Case of González et al. ("Cotton Field") v. Mexico. Request for widening the alleged victims and denial to send documentary evidence.